By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo on why Pokemon won't be coming to home console

Scizor_99 said:
curl-6 said:

MMOs can also be insanely profitable though.

But I don't think it'll happen, cos as you say, it's a risk, and modern Nintendo doesn't really go risks.

Do you want to pay a $15-20 sub fee with possible microtansactions and have the game go on for more than 5+ years? Masuda talked about those policies not being friendly to the broader Pokemon demogaphic.

Absolutely not, but then again, I don't even buy Pokemon now.



Around the Network
Scizor_99 said:

Money doesn't just come out thin air. Think about it. You're asking them to spend 10x the money (probably this much if they want to make a good game) making an entirely different kind of Pokemon game on Nintendo home consoles, which are in not good shape right now and are dwindling in Japan. Furthermore, such products would require longer devlopment cycles, meaning they depend that much more on sales to pull a profit. Let's not mention what will happen to the handheld version (that is to assume such a thing still exists) when hardcore gamers flee to the version which is clearly superior.  How  would they be more profitable?

You're essentially asking them to make a move that would likely lose them A LOT of money, even when you take into consideration new and returning fans. While it's perfectly reasonable to ask companies to do things that may not clearly be the best from a business standpoint, it's completely unreasonable to ask them to make investments that will have severly diminished returns. 


The same reason GTA is more profitable now that it's in 3D. The same reason Pokemon is. The same reason Mario is. People won't just stop buying the 2D versions, especially not if they're like me, and many of us are. In Mario's case, people buy the 2D versions more. All are more profitable now that they've gone to their larger 3D scales. It wouldn't lose them money. It would make them even more money. A lot more.

Gamefreak already knows how to force the audience to collectively own both versions. Don't underestimate that.



tbone51 said:
curl-6 said:

Still as bold as a Pokemon MMORPG would be.

Truly risky Nintendo was when they bought us the Wiimote, the DS, etc.

How about the Gamepad and 3D screen? :)

Perhaps I should amend my comment; they don't take big risks as much as they used to.



curl-6 said:
tbone51 said:

How about the Gamepad and 3D screen? :)

Perhaps I should amend my comment; they don't take big risks as much as they used to.


Ok but... "But I don't think it'll happen, cos as you say, it's a risk, and modern Nintendo doesn't really go risks." Now your saying They are, just not as much

All i was getting at XD



tbone51 said:
curl-6 said:

Perhaps I should amend my comment; they don't take big risks as much as they used to.

Ok but... "But I don't think it'll happen, cos as you say, it's a risk, and modern Nintendo doesn't really go risks." Now your saying They are, just not as much

All i was getting at XD

I waas speaking in broad strokes, and truth be told, with a teensy bit of bitterness. I wish they'd take risks more often, most of my favourite things they've ever done were risks.



Around the Network
spemanig said:

Wrong. To say that that is all I want completely ignores why people enjoy open world games. The behind the back camera is nessecary to enjoy a map with Xenoblade's scale. Having a behind the back camera in Pokemon XY would make the game less enjoyable, because the map is built for an over the head view. Pokemon has just as many "segmented non-linear bits" as Xenoblade.

Stop putting words in my mouth and stop making things up. I don't dislike turn based battles just because I prefer real time combat. Random encounters are a flaw of any JRPG, including Pokemon. They aren't some unique design choice. They completely leave the ability to find the Pokemon you want to a random number generator, and harshly limits the believability and lived-in feel of any world. It turns what is supposed to be a vibrant ecosystem bursting with wildlife into a barren video game area with a random number generator for enemy encounters.

Saying that I just "don't like top down views" harshly oversimplifies the issue, and there is an issue. ALBW is one of the best Zelda games, period. A 2D, top down game. That doesn't mean that ALBW wouldn't have been better if it was made to sport a larger 3D world, which would nessesitate a behind the back 3D camera, because it would have. Difference is, Zelda is already making those kinds of games.

A top down view limits the scale of the world. It limits the detail. It limits the means of traversability. It limits the believability. It limits the explorability. And for absolutely no good reason other than technological constraints. Xenoblade Chronicles, the constant example, is a better game because it has all these things. Xenoblade Chronicles, if reformated to be a top down, 2D game, would be an objectively worse game because of all those things they'd need to limit because of it. Pokemon is, in essense, that top down, 2D Xenoblade. And unlike Zelda, it doesn't have a 3D, massively open world, nessicerily behind the back 3rd person equivilant to justify it's existance.

And yes, I group them with being a better game. They make a better game. There's a reason why nearly every single JRPG that started top down on a console has evolved to be 3D, "behind the back," games.

The MM fanbase was wrong if they ever thought a simple remake of an already niche game would somehow be supremely lucrative, just like any Pokemon fan who thinks that a new Pokemon Snap or Stadium game will make them a boat load of money.

Exponentially increasing and evolving (sorry) the scale of what is arguably the most powerful video game franchise in the world, next to Mario, is an entirely different beast though. The two examples are not even remotely comparable. MM fans are a whisper compared to the outright uproar that is the Pokemon fanbase that actually wants this, and especially the audience that would have no intrest in Pokemon otherwise.

The Pokemon games aren't "niche" games like MM is. Massively open world games aren't a "niche" concept. Pokemon may as well be Nintendo's GTA, only they're still stuck on GTA 2 and China Town Wars, when the majority of fans, and yes I did say the majority, would much rather be playing 3-5, especially now that it's finally technologically achievable.

You say I put words in your mouth, then go on to reassert that you prefer real-time combat to turn-based, that random encounters are objectively bad, that behind-the-back 3D cameras are inherently superior to top-down, that a combination of these choices can be called "better" and left at that. My assessment was spot-on.

I don't know how on earth you came to the conclusion that Pokemon is "a top-down 2D Xenoblade." These are not the same games at all. Not even remotely. Both are technically role-playing games made in Japan, and the similarities just about end there.

If every Pokemon had a designated location it would appear in the game world, where it would appear without fail every time, it would be way too easy to find and catch whatever particular Pokemon you wanted. There would be no "rare" Pokemon, no feeling of excitement from stumbling upon one. They could make it so that Pokemon had a chance of being in a certain location or of not being there at all, but then you're fighting against the very same RNG the games already have. Xenoblade had RNG elements, too, and the workaround to them is saving, quitting, and reloading your file. That is not more fun or more engrossing than riding your bike through the grass, running from one random encounter after another.

The absolute ire with which you describe random encounters, your continued insistence that full-3D is outright better than top-down, and your preference for a completely different type of basic gameplay from what Pokemon offers once again compels me to ask exactly why you like this franchise to begin with, and why you continue to play it while expressing obvious disdain for so many core elements of its design.

The majority of Pokemon fans are children and/or Japanese. The former are very happy with Pokemon being the way it is, on a console they actually own that they can play at a relative's house on holidays or on the school bus or in bed under the covers while their parents think they're asleep. The latter are also very happy with Pokemon being the way it is, on a handheld. You are actually banking on millions of non-Pokemon fans suddenly jumping on board the franchise for one game.

Your comments about top-down games make me feel light-headed. It sounds like if you had your way they would be done away with entirely. Furthermore, they make me legitimately question whether or not you are even familiar with the concept of an opinion, of a personal preference. Because the way you talk about games makes it sound like you believe red and blue cannot be different and equal, that if you like red more than blue then red simply must be better, and everything that is blue should ideally be painted red. There can still be some blue things as long as those things are also available in red so that you don't have to deal with the color blue at all.

Variety is the spice of life. You should not be so eager to force the homogenization of games.



spemanig said:
Scizor_99 said:

Money doesn't just come out thin air. Think about it. You're asking them to spend 10x the money (probably this much if they want to make a good game) making an entirely different kind of Pokemon game on Nintendo home consoles, which are in not good shape right now and are dwindling in Japan. Furthermore, such products would require longer devlopment cycles, meaning they depend that much more on sales to pull a profit. Let's not mention what will happen to the handheld version (that is to assume such a thing still exists) when hardcore gamers flee to the version which is clearly superior.  How  would they be more profitable?

You're essentially asking them to make a move that would likely lose them A LOT of money, even when you take into consideration new and returning fans. While it's perfectly reasonable to ask companies to do things that may not clearly be the best from a business standpoint, it's completely unreasonable to ask them to make investments that will have severly diminished returns. 


The same reason GTA is more profitable now that it's in 3D. The same reason Pokemon is. The same reason Mario is. People won't just stop buying the 2D versions, especially not if they're like me, and many of us are. In Mario's case, people buy the 2D versions more. All are more profitable now that they've gone to their larger 3D scales. It wouldn't lose them money. It would make them even more money. A lot more.

Gamefreak already knows how to force the audience to collectively own both versions. Don't underestimate that.

I really don't know what you're talking about. GTA changed developers, massively upped production values and ran a huge marketing campaign. Pokemon's sales have been about flat since the GBA (assuming you're talking about the jump to X/Y here). I'm not sure waht you're getting at with Mario. Mario sales have been more a function of hardware sales and dierction. 

People will stop buying the 2D versions if the visuals and gameplay are massively inferior.  Let's not forget that the 2D versions would be essentially be entirely different games under your proposal. If the 2D versions still exist, they will be mostly for casuals and diehard fans. 

It's not always as simple as "do what people want and you'll make more money". The AAA gaming industry has become a lot more unstable because people can't make very ambitious, high-quality games without the risk of going bankrupt. It was never like this before the HD era. Meanwhile, the devs in the mobile gaming industry, with its low-quality games, ads and microtransactions are laughing in their faces. I'm quite annoyed with Gamefreak myself due to the decidedly average quality of their games considering the insane sales but I know demanding absolute massive changes (like what you're suggesting) in the short term is unreasonable. Considering the fast progression of mobile chips, the next Nintendo handheld should be fairly powerful without costing too much, and with Masuda recognizing the desires of the fans, it's  likely that we'll see a progression to a more open world on handheld anyway.



I still don't understand why the topic is titled as "Nintendo on why Pokemon won't be coming to home console" when this is Masuda talking, who is from GameFreak, not Nintendo.

EricFabian said:

yes, sure! Because all Nintendo 1st party games has terrible graphics *roll eyes*

Where are you getting "Nintendo" from? Topic title is misleading, so is the article. Junichi Masuda from GameFreak is talking in this interview, not any Nintendo representative.  GameFreak is incompitent and is likely unable to create something that looks or runs good; therefore they're right to say that they're unable to create a game as such. 



EricFabian said:
forethought14 said:
Theyre right, they can't make it work right now, they're incompetent on the graphical front, the game will probably both look and run horribly on a console. Of course they could always, say....let Monolith Soft handle the world, models, etc. ;)


yes, sure! Because all Nintendo 1st party games has terrible graphics *roll eyes*

and game freak delivered pokemon games on gamecube/wii with the same graphical level as other nintendo games at the time.



spemanig said:
tbone51 said:

Why? You dont have to buy them :-/ (sounds selfish i mean)

Also im thinking that pokemon line will be the amiibo Cards. It makes too much sense.


I don't want a Pokemon game where I need a $13 toy to access anything in the game.

cards wouldn't be $13.